People v. Taylor

• Decision Date: 18 February 2022
• Docket Number: Appeal No. 3-19-0281
• Citation: 2022 IL App (3d) 190281,194 N.E.3d 41,456 Ill.Dec. 922
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Shaun N. TAYLOR, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

2022 IL App (3d) 190281

194 N.E.3d 41

456 Ill.Dec. 922

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.Shaun N. TAYLOR, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal No. 3-19-0281

Appellate Court of Illinois, Third District.

Filed February 18, 2022

James E. Chadd, Thomas A. Karalis, and Santiago A. Durango, of State Appellate Defender's Office, of Ottawa, for appellant.

Catherine Runty, State's Attorney, of Cambridge (Patrick Delfino, Thomas D. Arado, and Justin A. Nicolosi, of State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor's Office, of counsel), for the People.

JUSTICE SCHMIDTdelivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1DefendantShaun N. Taylor appeals from his conviction of attempted first degree murder of a peace officer.The lower court sentenced defendant to 30 years in prison plus an additional 20 years for using a firearm during the commission of the offense.On appeal, he argues that (1)the trial court erred in denying his request for a second expert to evaluate his mental state at the time he committed the offense and (2) the 20-year firearm enhancement for attempted murder of a peace officer does not apply.For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

¶ 2 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 3Defendant was charged with one count of attempted first degree murder of a peace officer ( 720 ILCS 5/8-4(a), (c)(1)(A), 9-1(West 2016)) and one count of aggravated discharge of a firearm (id.§ 24-1.2(a)(3)) for shooting at Illinois State Police TrooperAndrew Scott after Scott initiated a traffic stop of defendant's vehicle.Prior to trial, the court appointed clinical psychologist Dr. Kirk Witherspoon to examine defendant and determine whether he was fit to stand trial and whether he could raise the defense of not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI).Witherspoon conducted an evaluation and diagnosed defendant as suffering from posttraumatic stress disorder stemming from his military service in Afghanistan.Applying multiple psychological factors, Witherspoon concluded that defendant was fit for trial and failed to meet the threshold for asserting the defense of NGRI.In an addendum to his report, Witherspoon noted that defendant reported using "psychostimulants" to stay awake while driving at the time of his arrest.Witherspoon stated that the ingestion of such stimulants would, in his opinion, preclude defendant's ability to plead not guilty by reason of insanity.Witherspoon concluded that, in the event defendant was found guilty, a guilty-but-mentally-ill presumption would apply.Specifically, he recommended that defendant"be considered as reasonably experiencing significant and debilitating posttraumatic stress disorder, irrespective of psychostimulant use, relative to adjudicatory and dispositional considerations."

¶ 4 In addition to his report, Witherspoon provided defense counsel with a handwritten note, opining:

"Mr. Taylor is a borderline case.I do not think he meets the threshold of NGRI.However, if his parents can afford it, you may wish to seek a second opinion.If so, I can give you the names of a couple of other good psychologists who can do this work."

¶ 5 In response to Witherspoon's note, defendant filed a motion requesting the appointment of a psychologist, at the State's expense, to conduct an evaluation and provide a second opinion as to his mental state at the time he committed the offense.In support of his motion, defendant cited Witherspoon's report, the addendum, and the handwritten note.

¶ 6 Following a hearing on the motion, the trial court denied defendant's request.The court found that defendant had met the threshold requirement of establishing that he was indigent.It then discussed whether there was a need for a second expert.The court noted that defendant had already been evaluated by Witherspoon at the State's expense with Witherspoon finding defendant did not meet the requirements of an insanity defense.The court noted that Witherspoon's report did not include a recommendation that the court appoint another evaluator.The court emphasized that, in prior cases, Witherspoon's report included a recommendation for a second evaluation if needed and found that the psychologist's failure to do so in this case was significant.

¶ 7 At trial, evidence revealed that Scott stopped defendant on Interstate 80 around 9:30 p.m. on October 15, 2017.Defendant was traveling from the state of Washington to Massachusetts.Scott approached defendant's vehicle, identified himself as an Illinois State Trooper, and informed defendant that he was going to give him a warning.He asked defendant to return to the squad car with him, but defendant declined the invitation.While Scott was preparing the warning, another officer arrived with a canine unit.The officer walked around defendant's vehicle, and the dog alerted.Scott and the other officer then approached the vehicle and asked defendant to exit the car.Instead, defendant sped off.

¶ 8Defendant pulled off the interstate at a nearby exit and parked his car on a country road.He grabbed his AR-15 semiautomatic rifle and a .40-caliber handgun and took a position with a line of sight of his vehicle in a nearby cornfield.Moments later, Scott pulled up behind defendant's vehicle.He exited his squad car but did not approach defendant's vehicle, instead, moving toward the back of his squad car.That is when defendant fired 23 shots in Scott's direction with the semiautomatic rifle.Scott survived the incident unharmed.Law enforcement pursued defendant on foot.Several hours later, defendant surrendered.

¶ 9 The jury found defendant guilty of attempted murder of a peace officer and aggravated discharge of a firearm.The trial court merged the aggravated discharge conviction into the attempted murder conviction.

¶ 10 Prior to sentencing, the court entertained argument on the propriety of applying a 20-year enhancement to defendant's sentence for personally discharging a firearm.The State focused on the term "shall" in the firearm enhancement language and argued it was mandatory.Defendant argued that application of the firearm enhancement would constitute a double enhancement under the statute given that he was already subject to the enhanced sentencing range of 20 to 80 years.

¶ 11 Relying on People v. Jackson , 2018 IL App (1st) 150487, 423 Ill.Dec. 588, 105 N.E.3d 996, andPeople v. Tolentino , 409 Ill. App. 3d 598, 351 Ill.Dec. 72, 949 N.E.2d 1167(2011), the court found the 20-year enhancement would not constitute a double enhancement.Specifically, the court stated,

"When the victim is a peace officer, the sentencing range is enhanced in recognition of the heightened risk officers take in performing their duties, seeking to deter the intentional killings of police officers.The 20-year firearm enhancement, the purpose of that is to *** deter the use of firearms in the commission of felonies due to the greater risk posed by their use.So the Court found that those are designed to address different situations; therefore, it's not a double enhancement to impose both ***."

¶ 12The court imposed an aggregate term of 50 years in prison.The court's sentence consisted of a 30-year term under section 8-4(c)(1)(A) of the attempt statute based on Scott's status as a peace officer plus a 20-year firearm enhancement under section 8-4(c)(1)(C) for defendant's personal discharge of a firearm.720 ILCS 5/8-4(c)(1)(A), (C)(West 2016).

¶ 13Defendant appeals.

¶ 14 II.ANALYSIS

¶ 15 A. Request for Second Expert Opinion

¶ 16Defendant argues the trial court erred in denying his request for the appointment of a second expert to determine whether he was insane at the time of the offense.

¶ 17 A defendant has a constitutional right to present a complete defense and compel necessary witnesses on his or her behalf regardless of a defendant's ability to pay.People v. Lawson , 163 Ill. 2d 187, 220, 206 Ill.Dec. 119, 644 N.E.2d 1172(1994).An indigent defendant, however, is not entitled to an expert merely because the expert would be useful, helpful, valuable, or important to the defense.People v. Shelton , 401 Ill. App. 3d 564, 575, 340 Ill.Dec. 840, 929 N.E.2d 144(2010).The defendant must show that the requested expert assistance is necessary in proving a crucial issue in the case and that the lack of funds for the expert will therefore prejudice him.Lawson , 163 Ill. 2d at 221, 206 Ill.Dec. 119, 644 N.E.2d 1172.We review a trial court's denial of a motion for an expert witness for an abuse of discretion.In re Commitment of Lingle , 2018 IL App (4th) 170404, ¶ 39, 422 Ill.Dec. 432, 103 N.E.3d 564.A trial court abuses its discretion when its ruling is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable, or where no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the trial court.People v. Donoho , 204 Ill. 2d 159, 182, 273 Ill.Dec. 116, 788 N.E.2d 707(2003).

¶ 18 In Ake v. Oklahoma , 470 U.S. 68, 83, 105 S.Ct. 1087, 84 L.Ed.2d 53(1985), the United States Supreme Court established that, "when a defendant demonstrates to the trial judge that his sanity at the time of the offense is to be a significant factor at trial, the State must, at a minimum, assure the defendant access to a competent psychiatrist who will conduct an appropriate examination and assist in evaluation, preparation, and presentation of the defense."In Illinois, a defendant's right of access to a psychiatric examination is protected by statute as well.Under section 115-6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963( 725 ILCS 5/115-6(West 2020) ), if a defendant indicates that he or she may rely on the defense of insanity or plead guilty but mentally ill, "the Court shall *** order the defendant to submit to examination by at least one clinical psychologist or psychiatrist."Section 115-6 also provides that the trial court"may order additional examinations if the Court finds that additional examinations by additional experts will be of substantial value in the determination of issues of insanity or drugged conditions."Id.

¶ 19 In this case,...